Proposed paedophilia-exclusionary changes to the Code of Conduct

[Crazycat]

Sorry guys, I'm not in the team, I'm not sure I've anything to say here, but I'll say that I agree with Laird and I, as simple helper, can't help peoples having forum about subjects I can't caution, as paedophilia, terrorism, any-suprematy....

Find the good CoC you want, but first ask yourself if the CoC suit or relieve your believes.

[Omar G.]

We could also consider updating the software's default "Registration Agreement", this with the intention to bring awareness of CSAM by just mentioning it in default installations outside the scope of the project's control.

I agree that content of children in a sexualized manner could be handled for this the same or together with CSAM, and the text could be handled to reflect that.

I would also suggest sending Pull Requests for any change you suggest, as that could bring attention to the issue being discussed.

[Laird]

Omar and dvz, you have both indicated that you are opposed to the exclusion of unrestrained paedophiles from the MyBB Community.

Have I misunderstood?

If not, can you each please explain why?

[Omar G.]

Yes, you have misunderstood.

What do you mean with "unrestrained" and "apologism" ? I understand the words, but I seem to grasp that my understanding of their definition is far less extreme or radical than yours.

I have said it before, and I stand to it, not all pedophilia behavior is by itself a wrongdoing of children rights. Will this opinion of mine be in violation of our SEP or CoC if we introduce these words or concepts into it ?

Under modern human rights, third party non government or state institutions, like FaceBook, Reddit, and ultimately MyBB.com might be found liable for human rights violations regarding rights to, say, access, inclusion, descrimination, privacy, due process, and judicial appeal.

We can't just ban or block any and every user we suspect of to be "arguing in favor of" pedophile behavior [or offering services to people suffering from such situation]… Yes, children rights are treated specially under human rights, but they do not reign supreme to them.

I might be biased on a technical point of view, but that is not fully assertive, as human rights are built on moral grounds after all.

The website (support thread) that rose this issue was a site sharing children pictures on a sexualized oriented site, this I was unable to grasp at first, then corrected myself and proceed to deny support to the user under the "Danger to privacy/safety/security" section of our SEP.
https://mybb.com/support/eligibility-policy/

The current PEP or CoC does allow for interpretation to ban or block users who share CSAM or content of sexualization of children.

What I think we are discussing or should be discussing here are 2 things:

1. Clarification of such content being against our SEP as to prevent owners of such sites from sharing or asking for support in our platform in the future, and
2. Visualization of CSAM or sexualization of children into our rules, guidelines, or software as appropriate.

I think the suggested changes you propose indeed cover these, but they also overstep into other potential issues which I commented. This is the reason I agree with changes to the SEP and probably the CoC with different or less wording, but still clear enough and using keywords like CSAM and "sexualization of children".

I also suggested adding similar wording to the software's default "Registration Agreement" which is shipped with each individual copy of the product we deliver, even if we have no power to enforce them at all [outside of the scope of our platform].

I respond on my behalf only, buy I do agree with some things Devilshakerz did mention.

[Laird]

Hi Omar,

Let's start here:

The current PEP or CoC does allow for interpretation to block or ban users who share CSAM or content of sexualization of children.

That's good to know. The main point of the proposed changes is to ensure that that interpretation is mandated, not merely allowed for.

Those proposed changes are, of course, motivated by recent events.

In those recent events, the offending member had asked to be removed. What, though, if (s)he had not? It seems possible that (s)he would remain a member. That is the situation that I and those on whose behalf I have proposed these changes want to avoid.

I can see a few potential responses here then:

Firstly, it might be argued, as dvz seems to, that this is a minority view. This seems to me to be unlikely, for a couple of reasons.

One is that the broader community (beyond MyBB) is in general very averse to coexistence with paedophiles. There is no shortage, for example, of news articles in which members of the public express great concern about convicted paedophiles, having been released from jail, living nearby. It might then be counter-argued that the incident in question - in which a MyBB member ran a board in which images of children were shared in a sexualised context - is qualitatively different to that of a convicted paedophile. I think, though, that most people would see this instead as a matter of degree - that the offences are similar in nature, and that one just happens to be more serious than the other - and that the incident in question is serious enough to warrant exclusion of the offender.

The other is that only one person (you) has voted other than an unconditional "Yes" in this poll (although dvz has implicitly indicated an unconditional "No", but for some reason hasn't voted explicitly), and that prior to the poll, several community members had expressed both publicly and privately concern about the lax approach taken by MyBB staff in this incident. I don't see any evidence, then, of any community member who does not share this view, other than staff. That's not to say that they don't exist, but the burden, it seems to me, lies on those who claim that the view is a minority one to demonstrate as much.

Secondly, and much more importantly, it might be argued that to exclude a member in this scenario would be a violation of their human rights for which MyBB might be found liable. You have implicitly conceded that this is not the case though in the quote above: that the current MyBB rules support such a thing. Moreover, it is anyway false. The opposite is true: online platforms have an obligation to exclude members who may through their behaviour pose a risk to others. MyBB does not, as far as I know, prohibit minors from participating in its community. Is MyBB meeting its obligations to those minors if it allows members known to be sharing images of children in a sexual context elsewhere to remain on its platform? I think the answer is a clear "No".

Moving on to your questions:

What do you mean with "unrestrained" and "apologism" ?

Those terms were motivated by the incident in question. In this instance, the "unrestrained" paedophilia is the sharing of images of children in a sexual context. "Restrained" paedophilia in contrast would be - based on the recognition that although one has a sexual attraction to children, it would be wrong to act on it - not acting on such an attraction.

In this instance, the "apologism" is the member in question proudly asserting when exposed that (s)he had nothing to hide and by implication had done nothing wrong.

If you want to discuss other possible applications of these terms, then feel free to bring them up.

I have said it before, and I stand to it, not all pedophilia behavior is by itself a wrongdoing of children rights. Will this opinion of mine be in violation of our SEP or CoC if we introduce these words or concepts into it ?

I assume not, because I assume that you are as opposed to unrestrained paedophilia as the rest of us.

We can't just ban and block any and every user we suspect of to be "arguing in favor of" pedophile behavior [or offering services to people suffering from such situation]…

Where the argument is for unrestrained behaviour motivated by paedophilic proclivities, I think we certainly can ban and block users making those arguments.

I'm not sure what other behaviour is relevant. Perhaps you can explain.

What I think we are discussing or should be discussing here are 2 things:

1. Clarification of such content being against our SEP as to prevent owners of such sites from sharing or asking for support in our platform in the future, and

I would agree with that except that it is superseded by the proposed mandated exclusion: a banned member cannot be supported anyway. It seems to me that the SEP is not the appropriate place for that mandate, because exclusion from membership goes beyond exclusion from support eligibility. That's why I've suggested changes to the CoC. If you or anybody else can suggest a more appropriate place, then that's fine. The most important thing is that it is inserted, not where.

2. Visualization of CSAM or sexualization of children into our rules, guidelines, or software as appropriate.

That's a good idea more broadly.

I also suggested adding similar wording to the software's default "Registration Agreement" which is shipped with each individual copy of the product we deliver, even if we have no power to enforce them at all [outside of the scope of our platform].

That's a great idea. MyBB currently has a perception problem in that its software is sometimes used for distribution of CSAM, and some members of the public don't realise that MyBB as an organisation isn't responsible for that. Having default wording in the registration agreement making it clear that that's forbidden would go some way to countering that misperception. So, too, would taking a strong, zero-tolerance approach against unrestrained paedophiles by unconditionally banning them from the MyBB community.

[Omar G.]

I will start by saying that regardless of your opinion being a minority opinion or not is irrelevant, in my opinion, as minorities can be as correct as majorities.

Is MyBB meeting its obligations to those minors if it allows members known to be sharing images of children in a sexual context elsewhere to remain on its platform? I think the answer is a clear "No".

It is my opinion that by denying the user support was enough related to the specific case, we did comply with the obligation we had at that point, even if it was not the initial response.

Yes, children are welcome here, but the community isn't children focused. I will repeat, children rights ought to be treated specially, but they do not reign supreme above all rights.

I disagree with your proposed changes, partially because if they are implemented we will be forced to ban or block people when there is no merit to it. For example, we will be forced to ban or block people who own communities where they share or discuss "lolicon" or "shotacon" (legal fictional comics or cartoons). It is my interpretation that such content will be in violation of the changes you propose.

Hence, I might agree with the SEP provision to deny support for such content owners, but banning or blocking them completely might overstep on their rights and compromise our "obligations".

Even worse, if you update the CoC I myself may be liable by having such opinion and express it here. I perceive myself as being seen as "apologist" in this sense.

(It was hard to quote you well, so I removed quotes from my message.)

[Laird]

I will start by saying that regardless of your opinion being a minority opinion or not is irrelevant, in my opinion, as minorities can be as correct as majorities.

MyBB is a voluntary community. Communities, especially voluntary communities, have a right to collectively decide who, due to moral deficiency, they do not want to include.

It is, then, very relevant what the majority of this voluntary community wants.

It is my opinion that by denying the user support was enough related to the specific case, we did comply with the obligation we had at that point, even if it was not the initial response.

On what basis do you consider that response to be sufficient? You obviously accept that the behaviour was unacceptable enough for support to be denied. Why, in your opinion, did it not rise to the level of a bannable offence?

Yes, children are welcome here

How welcome do you think any children reading this exchange feel, realising that they may be forced to share space with paedophiles known to be sharing images of children like them in a sexual context, and that MyBB staff will not lift a finger to help?

I disagree with your proposed changes, partially because if they are implemented we will be forced to ban or block people when there is no merit to it. For example, we will be forced to ban or block people who own communities where they share or discuss "lolicon" or "shotacon" (legal fictional comics or cartoons). It is my interpretation that such content will be in violation of the changes you propose.

In general: the existence of grey-area behaviour doesn't negate the existence of black and white behaviour, so this doesn't anyway work as a general argument against the proposed changes.

More specifically: personally, I'd never heard of lolicon or shotacon before, but, based on a quick bit of reading, yes, I would want them to be included as violations. That could be negotiable if the majority here disagrees.

Hence, I might agree with the SEP provision to deny support for such content owners, but banning or blocking them completely might overstep on their rights and compromise our "obligations".

Nobody has an inherent "right" to be part of a voluntary community, especially when the community rejects their moral character.

Even worse, if you update the CoC I myself may be liable by having such opinion and express it here. I perceive myself as being seen as "apologist" in this sense.

That's pretty disappointing in a staff member. Perhaps you could clarify exactly where the boundary of your opinion is. Clearly, you recognise that the incident in question was morally deficient behaviour, yet you don't recognise that lolicon and shotacon are morally deficient. Where exactly do you draw the line?

[Devilshakerz]

The argument seems to blend:

1. mixed context issues, as a more direct violation (language specificity issue),
   
2. various encouragement, as a less material violation (language specificity issue),
   
3. loosely interpreted violation discussions (scope issue),
   
4. off-platform activity (scope issue),
   

where product support only plays an accidental role in discovering/prompting the activity.

The first two align with the spirit of the Contributor Covenant / Code of Conduct, while the last two extend it with complex implications.


The aim of the CoC and SEP is to address potential problems:

• to an appropriate extent (balancing harm reduction with effective drawbacks)
  
• at a relevant level (CC → CoC → SEP)
  
• in a maintainable format (that is approachable for everyone in its final form)
  

Numerous arguments for each were posted the latest threads, and I'd offer that everybody agrees on principles.


Applying it to the 4 split arguments:

• To determine the appropriate extent, looking at society's norms in general is indeed a good approach:
  
  • A concept and text that target:
    • more direct violations
      
    • various encouragement (or advertisement, encouragement, incentive, inducement, solicitation)
      
    is/would be easy to understand, since it would include terms that are commonly used and understood (often with distinct legal definitions).
    
    This may not be the case for apologism.
    
    The relevant question becomes whether expressing a particular claim/thesis/opinion/belief that appears incorrect/illegal/unethical/offensive is itself [widely] illegal, unethical, or harmful. It necessitates a case-by-case assessment with several factors (e.g. how explicit it is; whether someone asked; the context of the discussion).
    
    The addition is expected to make the rules more clear in principle, but risks more confusion and interpretation problems in practice.
    
    Broader language in the CC exists for such instances.
    
    
    
  • The CC is designed for on-platform communication, with the 2nd paragraph of the CoC focusing on more material content.
    
    Whether to act upon entirely off-platform activity is a fair question. A relatively new set of related policies appear on large platforms (Twitch, Discord).
    
    You may find this article useful - on the concept, opportunities and challenges:
    https://policyreview.info/articles/analy...orm-policy
    
    Beyond product support, the Project-managed platforms resemble other technical ones, and the question of responding to off-platform activity applies to all of them.
    
    If off-platform behavior was to be scrutinized in similar communities, it would be reasonable for MyBB to consider following the same practice.
    
  
  
  
• We'd like to use good language and extent appropriate for the project type, hence the suggestion to tackle it at the Contributor Covenant level.
  
  The CC is tailored to software-related communities like MyBB, and the technical aspect is the reason why those are often compared to car or hardware stores, where one's off-premises history is not examined in detail. It may be useful to measure other maintainers/leaders' attitudes, nonetheless. The challenges are discussed in detail in the Policy article linked above; note that large platforms are the reference, so impact would be higher for smaller projects.
  
  Similarly, it's difficult to count the ways in which the current or suggested CC text is interpreted, so we would benefit from a diverse number of software projects in the same position.
  
  
  While mixed context issues and various encouragement should already be covered by the 2nd CoC paragraph, we can specify which Denial Reasons are usually appropriate for practical purposes.
  
  
  
• A maintainable format is achieved with language that is:
  
  • concrete enough to cover a range of violations, and
    
  • clear and concise, so that it can be easily understood, and not require continuous changes.
    
  
  Neglecting the latter may depreciate items that are not included. Similarly, adding an outcome to a particular violation may suggest it won't be the case for other violations.
  
  Some examples of discussed areas would resemble:
  
  • mixing of media/data with context of sexual/slanderous/harmful nature for more direct violations, and
    
  • encouragement of mentioned activities for less direct violations.
    
  
  If one believes the text doesn't cover a particular case because it's not there, the same logic applies after the addition for any other unlisted one. This is why it uses the terms legal, unethical or endangering where possible, and groups of actions/materials to help explain the scope's nature.
  
  
  The other templates may be generic enough for the same reasons. For reference, the relevant Registration Agreement language string:
  

  Whilst we attempt to edit or remove any messages containing inappropriate, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, slanderous, or threatening material that could be considered invasive of a person's privacy, or which otherwise violate any kind of law, it is impossible for us to review every message posted on this discussion system. For this reason you acknowledge that all messages posted on this discussion system express the views and opinions of the original message author and not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Therefore we take no responsibility and cannot be held liable for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy and completeness of every message.
  
  By registering on this discussion system you agree that you will not post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, sexually orientated, threatening or invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material which may violate any applicable laws.

  
  Issues around the perception of the software may be best tackled at the Report Abuse page, where we can explain what can be done, and offer actionable advice (the page and template responses to reports/takedown requests are sporadically tweaked).
  

[Joey_Pham423]

oh orange, I voted the wrong option, I meant to vote yes to the change lol

[Laird]

@dvz, I've read your post and the resources to which you linked. You make some reasonable points, but you don't seem to propose anything actionable.

I'd offer that everybody agrees on principles.

That doesn't seem to be the case. The main principle at stake is this:

That community members found to be running boards for paedophiles on which images of children are shared in a sexual context be unconditionally banned from MyBB platforms.

Omar doesn't agree with this principle. It is unclear whether or not you do, but it appears not. Can you please clarify? Do you or do you not agree with this principle?

Omar offers that the policy documents already allow for this interpretation; you seem to offer that broader language in the CC may already cover this. That's fine, but the point remains that with respect to the incident in question staff did not act by banning the member, and only deleted his/her account because (s)he requested as much. There is a need then to ensure that in future, they do unconditionally ban such members.

The means of ensuring this - presumably by embodying the principle in the relevant MyBB policy documents - is less important than that it is ensured, so, if you don't think that the changes I've proposed in the opening post in this thread are the best means of doing so, then can you please propose your preferred viable alternative?

Regarding "apologism" versus "advertisement", "encouragement", "incentive", "inducement", and "solicitation", it needn't be one or another; multiple descriptors could be used to cover as broad a range of behaviour as possible. I agree though that this is the lesser in severity of the two behaviours.